June 22-25, 2009 i3 Conference Aberdeen, Scotland Convenience, Connections, Correctness, and Choice: Critical Components of Virtual Reference Service Quality.

June 22-25,

2009

i3 Conference

Aberdeen,

Scotland

Convenience, Connections,

Correctness, and Choice:

Critical Components of Virtual Reference Service Quality

Convenience, Connections,

Correctness, and Choice:

Critical Components of Virtual Reference Service Quality

Marie L. Radford, Ph.D.Associate Professor

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

Lynn Silipigni Connaway, Ph.D.

Senior Research ScientistOCLC Research

Critical Components Critical Components

•Research to understand needs of diverse user population

•Design services to meet users’ needs

Information EnvironmentInformation Environment

•Rapidly changing user characteristics

• Information-seeking preferences

• Communication & behavior patterns

•Global economics

• Decrease in funding sources

• Ongoing budget cuts

• Informed decision-making critical

IMLS, OCLC, & Rutgers University funded project

Four phases:

Focus group interviews

Analysis of 850 QuestionPoint live chat transcripts

Online surveys

137 VRS Users

184 VRS Non-users

Telephone interviews

76 VRS Users

107 VRS Non-users

Seeking Synchronicity: Evaluating Virtual Reference Services from User, Non-User, & Librarian Perspectives

Online Surveys & Phone InterviewsOnline Surveys & Phone Interviews

•Descriptive statistical analysis

•Demographics

•Multiple choice (surveys only)

•Likert-type (surveys only)

•Qualitative analysis

•Open-ended questions

•2 critical incident (CI) questions

User Demographics:Online Surveys & Telephone Interviews (N=212)

User Demographics:Online Surveys & Telephone Interviews (N=212)

Net Gen (N=70)

•Female (54%, 38)

•19-28 years old (53%, 37)

•Caucasian (66%, 46)

•Suburban public libraries

Adult, 29+ (N=142)

•Female (72%, 102)

•36-45 years old (34%, 48)

•Caucasian (85%, 121)

•Suburban public libraries

Experience with Service Modes: User Online Survey (N=137)Experience with Service Modes: User Online Survey (N=137)

64%87

48%66 37%

50

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Email Telephone IM

57%78

22%30

10%14

7%9

4%6

2-3 Times Total

4-6 Times Total

1-2 Times/Month

3-4 Times/Month

5 or MoreTimes/Month

Frequency of Use: User Online Survey(N=137)

Frequency of Use: User Online Survey(N=137)

How often have you used chat

reference?

76%37

6%314%

7

4%2

0%0

36%12

36%12

12%4

15%5

0%0

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

FtF Phone Email Text Chat

Net Gen VRS Users Adult VRS Users

Chat Least Intimidating: User Online Survey Net Gens (N=49) Adults (N=88)

Chat Least Intimidating: User Online Survey Net Gens (N=49) Adults (N=88)

“I am least intimidated by”

92%81

82%40

76%

78%

80%

82%

84%

86%

88%

90%

92%

94%

Net Gen VRS Users Adult VRS Users

Likely to Return? User Online Survey Net Gens (N=49) Adults (N=88)

Likely to Return? User Online Survey Net Gens (N=49) Adults (N=88)

“The probability that I will use reference services again is”

Why Users Recommend VRS:Telephone Interviews (N=76)Why Users Recommend VRS:Telephone Interviews (N=76)

•Would recommend VRS (89%, 68)

•Why?

•Speed & efficiency (32%, 24)

•Convenience (32%, 24)

User Telephone Interviews: Chat is Convenient (N=76)User Telephone Interviews: Chat is Convenient (N=76)

Chat 1st choice

•18% (14) quick answers

Why?

•60% (45) convenience

Recommendation Important: User Online Surveys Net Gens (N=49)

Recommendation Important: User Online Surveys Net Gens (N=49)

•Used VRS because recommended

•Recommended VRS more than adults

What Attracts Users to VRS?Online Surveys (N=137)What Attracts Users to VRS?Online Surveys (N=137)

•Convenience, Convenience, Convenience

• Available 24/7

• Working from home

• At night or on weekends

• Immediate answers

• Lack of cost

• Efficient

•Less intimidating interactions

Important to All UsersImportant to All Users

•Knowledgeable librarians

•Positive attitude

•Communication skills

•Valued by “Screenagers”

•Personal relationship

•Successful interactions

Experience with Reference Modes:Non-User Online Survey (N=184)

Experience with Reference Modes:Non-User Online Survey (N=184)

28%52

19%35

2%3

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Telephone Email IM

FtF Preferred: Non-User Online SurveyNet Gens (N=122) Adults (N=62)

FtF Preferred: Non-User Online SurveyNet Gens (N=122) Adults (N=62)

•Adults (81%, 50)

•Net Gens (71%, 87)

Texting12%15

Email27%33

Phone12%14

FtF49%60

FtF Preferred by Net Gens:Non-user Online Survey (N=122)

FtF Preferred by Net Gens:Non-user Online Survey (N=122)

“I most enjoy using”

FtF20%24

Phone12%15

Texting17%21

Email51%62

Email Least Intimidating Mode: Non-User Online Survey Net Gens (N=122)

Email Least Intimidating Mode: Non-User Online Survey Net Gens (N=122)

“I am least intimidated by”

Critical Considerations for Info Seeking:Non-User Online SurveyNet Gens (N=87) Adults (N=51)

Critical Considerations for Info Seeking:Non-User Online SurveyNet Gens (N=87) Adults (N=51)

•Convenience

• Net Gens (87%, 76)

• Adults (78%, 40)

Critical Considerations for Info Seeking:Non-User Online SurveyNet Gens (N=41) Adults (N=13)

Critical Considerations for Info Seeking:Non-User Online SurveyNet Gens (N=41) Adults (N=13)

•Remote access is important

•Net Gens (95%, 39)

•Adults (85%, 11)

Interpersonal Communication is Valued:Non-User Online SurveysNet Gens (N=86) Adults (N=51)

Interpersonal Communication is Valued:Non-User Online SurveysNet Gens (N=86) Adults (N=51)

•Personal Relationship

•Adults (43%, 22)

•Net Gens (24%, 24)

•Specific Librarian

•Adults (51%, 26)

•Net Gens (42%, 36)

29%4

69%28

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Net Gen VRS Non-users Adult VRS Non-users

Friendliness & Politeness Valued:Non-User Online SurveyNet Gens (N=41) Adults (N=14)

Friendliness & Politeness Valued:Non-User Online SurveyNet Gens (N=41) Adults (N=14)

“The librarian is friendly and polite”

Why They Do Not Choose VRS: Non-User Online SurveyNet Gens (N=122) Adults (N=62)

Why They Do Not Choose VRS: Non-User Online SurveyNet Gens (N=122) Adults (N=62)

•Too complicated

•Adults (53%, 33)

•Net Gens (35%, 43)

•Typing skills poor

•Adults (35%, 22)

•Net Gens (16%, 19)

Why They Do Not Choose VRS:Non-User Online SurveyNet Gens (N=122) Adults (N=62)

Why They Do Not Choose VRS:Non-User Online SurveyNet Gens (N=122) Adults (N=62)

•Believe questions might annoy librarian

•Net Gens (29%, 32)

•Adults (16%, 10)

Why Net Gens Do Not Choose VRS:Non-User Online Survey (N=122)

Why Net Gens Do Not Choose VRS:Non-User Online Survey (N=122)

•Don’t know it is available

•Believe librarian couldn’t help

•Lack of 24/7 service

•Satisfied w/ other info sources

Why Adults Do Not Choose VRS: Non-User Online Survey (N=62)

Why Adults Do Not Choose VRS: Non-User Online Survey (N=62)

•Same as Net-Gen, but also…

•Lack computer skills

•Type slowly

•Complexity of chat environment

Non-User Telephone Interviews (N=107)

Non-User Telephone Interviews (N=107)

•FtF Preferred (24%, 26)

•Do not know VRS exists (16%, 17)

•Alternatives to library

• Internet (43%, 45)

•Personal convenience (38%, 39)

What We LearnedWhat We Learned

FtF & VRS Users want

•Extended service hours

•Access to electronic information

•Interact w/ friendly librarians

•Personal relationship with librarians

What We Can DoWhat We Can Do

Provide

•Variety of service modes

•Convenient, authoritative, reliable services

•Accurate information

What Else We Can DoWhat Else We Can Do

•Creative marketing

• Promote full range of options

• Reassure young people VRS safe

•Build positive relationships whether FtF, phone, or online

End NotesEnd Notes

This is one of the outcomes from the projectSeeking Synchronicity: Evaluating Virtual Reference

Services from User, Non-User, and Librarian Perspectives

Funded by IMLS, Rutgers University, & OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.

Slides available at project web site: http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/synchronicity/

June 22-25,

2009

i3 Conference

Aberdeen,

Scotland

Questions & Comments

Questions & Comments

Lynn Silipigni [email protected]

Marie L. [email protected]